When these practices are taken to the field, they don't perform well because the conditions in the field do not support the necessary changes in microbial populations. If that environment could support those populations, they would have been there already!

BTW, I find it odd that I'm constantly reminded on this board how lawns are different than golf courses and that things from golf can't possibly be carried over to lawn maintenance. Then those same folks cite an article from Golf Course Maintenance magazine to prove their point about lawns. Intersting ...

I find it funny how you are running into a circular argument. If we have a lawn in the wild where the builder stripped away the top soil leaving us with hard pan clay, a little construction sand to level the lawn and what ever top soil available on the roots of the sod, then we should just live with it?

If the turf develops a disease that is controlled with biologicals we should not use it because ultimately the pro-botic will not thrive in the long run?

We should not try to use aeration and compost to improve the structure of the top 3 inches of the top soil?

Finally!!! Plz do stop posting on my threads,,, IF you are NOT going to address the meaning of the thread...

Now we have another irrelevant bickering about something other than the purpose of the thread... perhaps the bickering spewers could start a thread of their own,,, and others would be able to discuss SOIL STRUCTURE w/out bashers coming in and mocking the very idea of enhancing soil structure...

Sorry to become sour but,,, It astounds me that y'all imagine you're clever....

__________________
*
Now that I know that clay's texture(platelets) has nothing to do with water infiltration, percolation, or drainage,,, I wonder what does...
*

Finally!!! Plz do stop posting on my threads,,, IF you are NOT going to address the meaning of the thread...

Now we have another irrelevant bickering about something other than the purpose of the thread... perhaps the bickering spewers could start a thread of their own,,, and others would be able to discuss SOIL STRUCTURE w/out bashers coming in and mocking the very idea of enhancing soil structure...

Sorry to become sour but,,, It astounds me that y'all imagine you're clever....

I will ask to have my post deleted and will not ever post in one of your threads. Figuring out the meaning of your threads are difficult at best.

When composts were applied to creeping bentgrass in field
experiments, a significant level of suppressiveness was evident with some composts when disease pressure was
high (i.e., disease ratings high in uninoculated plots). A 1991 batch of turkey litter compost and the 1990 batch
of Endicott biosolids were consistently suppressive to foliar symptoms of Pythium root rot on creeping
bentgrass. This study indicates that suppression of Pythium diseases of creeping bentgrass in batches of
brewery sludge and Endicott biosolids composts, and possibly in other suppressive composts examined in less
detail in this study, is related directly to the microbial activities in the composts. On the other hand, the
mechanisms of Pythium suppression in turkey litter and perhaps other poultry-based composts is not related
directly to the compost microbial activity. Although turkey litter showed a lack of suppressiveness in laboratory
bioassays and low microbial populations and activity, it resulted in a significant and consistent level of
suppressiveness in field experiments.

What does this demonstrate? You haven't read the cited literature as you have claimed.

You asked for data, I provided a source. You didn't like what the data said ..... tough. You have stated and/or inferred on several threads there is no scientific research to show biological methods of disease suppression can work ..... you are wrong. Now you can whittle that down all you want, but in the end, you are still wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipster

You should probably read your pathology journals and attend the APS (American Phytopathological Society) meetings. You can keep up with turfgrass pathology research at the CSSA meetings, as well.

And what does this mean? Perhaps you can provide some citations to substantiate your inference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipster

Again, read the article you linked, the papers it cited, and keep up-to-date with current work from APS and C-5.

Again, perhaps you have some citations to this current work that invalidates all research in this field of study?

FYI, I read the article I linked years ago. However, unlike you I am not going to claim or infer I have read all the cited literature from the article. That said, it also doesn't mean I haven't read any of it either. In fact, I have reviewed a wide variety of literature pertaining to biological disease suppression\control, but unlike you, I do not categorically dismiss the potential for its use because results can be variable, particularly with respect to compost. I also will come down hard on manufacturers who make wildly exaggerated and/or unsubstantiated claims about their products .... and have done so on numerous occasions on this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipster

You linked a GCM article -- which is NOT peer reviewed.

Many of the citations are. But heh, I am certain you have also fully reviewed this list of studies published in 2007, if not authored/co-authored the majority of them ..... right skip?

You did, and do so on a regular basis, particularly when speaking through your foot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipster

I get pounded for suggesting that anything to do with golf or athletic turf might be even remotely associated with lawns. If you don't know enough about turfgrass systems to know the similarities and differences between the two, you probably shouldn't comment on them.

You get pounded for attempting to draw inappropriate parallels between sports turf and resi/comm turf, which once again demonstrates your inability to understand the management differences between the two.

I dare to come back into the fray. Skip is correct, in an perfect environment there would be no need. Native plants, perfect water, perfect drainage, the periodic wild fire and such and all the microbes that will thrive do thrive in perfect harmony and no one gets sick.

There is no such thing as a perfect environment in constructed landscapes, even in regionally appropriate and/or native constructed landscapes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELS Landscape

The reality is these products are tools that we can use to management "improved" landscapes on real estate in less than ideal conditions.

Anything that can help make management of constructed landscapes more sustainable is worth consideration.

Most crops grow best in crumbly soil that roots can easily grow through and that allows in water and air. Soil organisms play an important role in the formation of a good soil structure.

As spring turns to summer and the soil heats up, fungi grow long filaments called hyphae that surround soil particles and hold them together in soil aggregates. Some bacteria produce sticky substances that also help bind soil together.

Many soil aggregates between the diameters of 1/1000 and 1/10 of an inch (the size of the period at the end of this sentence) are fecal pellets. Arthropods and earthworms consume soil, digest the bacteria, and excrete a clump of soil coated with secretions from the gut. As beetles and earthworms chew and bury plant residue and burrow through the soil, they aerate the soil and create nutrient-lined channels for roots and water to move through.

We can influence this process in the many ways that have been spoken of here ad nauseum. There is no magic bean. I simply cannot understand why this turns into a fire fight every time.

1) It was conducted on creeping bentgrass maintained at 5 mm height. Not really relevant to lawn care.

2) They fertilized at about 3X the amount of N commonly used for bentgrass putting greens. It's common sense that if you overfertilizer with N, you're going to get a lot of Pythium activity in your control plots. They obviously tried to stack the deck in their favor and didn't want to test against common conditions

3) The conventional product they tested against was applied at 10% of the lowest rate on the product label. If you don't apply the product according to the directions, you're not going to get any control

4) The authors reached a different conclusion than you proposed. Their conclusion sounds a lot like what I've said:

"We conclude, therefore, that the suppression of Pythium
diseases of creeping bentgrass with compost amendments is
dependent on the microbial properties of the amendment and
the soil microbial responses following application...."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiril

You asked for data, I provided a source. You didn't like what the data said ..... tough. You have stated and/or inferred on several threads there is no scientific research to show biological methods of disease suppression can work ..... you are wrong.

Wrong. All I did was ask for data. What you have provided was data that backed up my assertions from previous threads -- bio control of diseases in lawn situations is inconsistent at best and has not been proven to be practical or as effective as conventional methods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiril

FYI, I read the article I linked years ago. However, unlike you I am not going to claim or infer I have read all the cited literature from the article. That said, it also doesn't mean I haven't read any of it either.

It's obvious you either haven't read the entire paper or you don't understand it. Why else would you draw conclusions opposite from those the authors of the paper wrote?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiril

You get pounded for attempting to draw inappropriate parallels between sports turf and resi/comm turf, which once again demonstrates your inability to understand the management differences between the two.

Is that why you cite articles about creeping bentgrass putting green management (using management regimes against all current recommendations and impractical for field use) to make a point about lawn care systems?